Talk:Criticisms of the labour theory of value/Archives/2016
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Criticisms of the labour theory of value. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Bias in "Microeconomics"
It is painfully obvious that the Microeconomics section was written by a proponent of the LTV. It is fine if LTV proponents write that section, but it should be written with much more neutral language. It reads more of a criticism of Marginalism than a criticism of the LTV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.152.203 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it's biased. Calling Neoclassical Economics, "the currently predominant school at the center of capitalist interests" suggests something different than "Neoclassical economics dominates microeconomics" which is the phrasing used in the Neoclassical economics page currently. Referring to the invisible hand as a "magical...force" doesn't accurately represent what is in the Invisible Hand article ,"The invisible hand is a term used by Adam Smith to describe the unintended social benefits of individual actions." --Thabonch (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The entire criticism section is painful. It reads exactly like a criticism from someone who never has and never will criticize the LTV. Here's what "capitalist interests" say, but now let me give a long explanation of why they're wrong!
User:Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F84B:BE00:68CA:B983:1DDA:88AE (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The Supply and Demand section of this article is currently incoherent
This section of the article is poor, and unusable as an encyclopedia entry, it reads like a Google translate of a blog post by somebody who didn't understand the question in the first place. For example, it contains language like: "he unnecessarily complicate the discussion by analyzing the complex power relations involved in the market relations." and "(which they usually don't have because of a 'natural' degree of less civilization, which leads great powerful countries to carpet bomb their cities and by mistake destroying too its infrastructure)." I invite some established Wikipedia editor to fix it - if nobody does, I will have a shot myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.234.149.34 (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)